Could be a little more sneaky though, i.e. give a little box in the end to "explain" answering yes or instead of 1 yes/no drop down, make 1 drop down for each choice. Also couldn't hurt to throw some irrelevant yes/no questions to hide the questions that matter, something like "Do you own pets?" or "Do you use dialup?"
As it is now, if you have a clue you can probably figure out that answering yes is pretty much an instant disqualification, since the system will never know if you are answering yes to only 1 founder(probably seems like no big deal to most people) or yes to none of the founders are programmers.
Answering yes doesn't mean instant disqualification. We've funded startups despite all of those. A yes just reminds us to take a second look to see if there are problems.
so how do you know if the person picked yes because its a single founder or if he picked yes because none of the founders are programmers?
I would at least add a text box for them to tell you, what it is they are answering yes to. Would save you that one phone call/email to ask that question.
I've never liked that the product description comes before the pain statement. If the product description makes the pain statement obvious then it isn't needed at all, but if not then it seems like the problem with the status quo should come first to put the product into context.
I'd like to apply, but i don't want to apply as a sole founder. Is anyone else in the same position? Shoot me a message, maybe we can work something out.
yeah, don't take me to say, "let's join forces." i meant to say, "let's talk." no commitment, no guarantees, no certain outcomes. but, based on the fact that we're all here, i hope we just might have enough in common to make something interesting happen. (raise your hand if you don't like it when interesting things happen.)
I think "cofounder" is in the same zone as "wife" in terms of trust required.
Now would be the time to start building the relationship for the next funding cycle. It'll give you time to try out working together and build a prototype to show off. Maybe you'll click immediately, and maybe you'll have a kickass weekend of coding together (remotely together is fine, too...Open Source projects often exist for years with the developers never meeting in person--my co-founder and I had worked together for about five years before meeting) and produce some sort of prototype. Sometimes things Just Work.
Would someone with experience in the area comment on the merits of "marriages of convenience" in the cofounding of startups?
It's happened, but nobody is going to recommend you start a business with a total stranger. But, if the choice is "start working with a stranger today to find out if we click as a team, or wait indefinitely until I know someone well enough to start a company with them" the answer is, obviously, try working together. If it works, great! If it doesn't, you're out a couple of months, and you've found out that this person isn't right for you. Make sure you establish some ground rules when code begins showing up, so you can divide or give up on the spoils and move on without animosity, but otherwise, digging in and working is the only way to know if you'll work well with someone.
You'll never know until you try, and if you can build a working demo and get along great, having a "wrong" answer to that one question will not prevent you from getting into YC.
For all those applying, I have some advice: I live well. I live very well, and all I do is sell software online. I got rich the moment I stopped chasing the startup dream.
I used to think that I could become a millionare by having one big software hit that would get bought by Microsoft and I'd never have to work on it again.
After a series of disappointments, I decided to stop chasing this dream, and instead just sell software online. Now I work very little, and I work on things I enjoy doing, and I earn way more money monthly than I can spend.
I'm pointing out that you don't need to create a calender widget or some time monitoring software to become rich. You can also just make a normal product that people want (for example Tax entry software), and sell it for a price that people are willing to pay ($300), and you'll make good money.
Play the lottery, but don't give up your entire life in the hope of a better life.
I'd like to add an agreement as well as a counter-point.
It's possible to sell software and chase the dream of a big exit. But, it's a different mindset and a different model, and you cut off some of your possibilities when you choose one or the other. If you build software with the intention of making it profitable within, say, six months, you will make decisions that work counter to making a sale to Google or MS or Yahoo. First thing you'll do that makes a sale to a mass-market consumer Internet company less likely is you'll charge money for your software and thus cut your userbase by an order of magnitude, if not more. Free stuff has tens or hundreds or thousands of times the number of users. I know this to be true because our commercial offering has a little over 1000 paying customers. I know, that's awesome, right? Until you learn that our Open Source software has X million users . I have no clue exactly how many users 12 million verifiable downloads, plus countless downloads from mirrors and other sources, means in real living, breathing, users...but it's certainly more than one million and probably less than 12 million. Makes our 1000 paying customers look like a bad joke. But, when it comes to being acquired by the big guys, 1000 paying customers is nothing...X million users is more interesting to them, by far. And, of course, I should point out that not everyone with a startup has the option of following both paths--we were "lucky" enough to have been working on our Open Source products for the past 10 years or so before deciding to make a business and a commercial product out of it.
But there's more yet to the story. When you have revenue...at least, revenue of a certain level, say, $1 million annually, you are no longer at the mercy of investors or acquirers, and you're more likely to find that you can call the shots in raising money and in being acquired. You may not be acquired by the coolest company in the world, but there are an awful lot of companies out there that would like to acquire a software product that makes $1 million a year, even if it's only serving 1000 paying customers.
I don't think maxklein or I can tell you (the figurative "you" that is applying, or thinking of applying, to YC) what kind of business you ought to build. But being aware of the extremely wide range of possibilities for funding, growing, and making money from your business is absolutely mandatory if you want to come out the other end of the process happy and feeling like you got your time's worth.
Play the lottery, but don't give up your entire life in the hope of a better life.
I can attest that trying to hit a homerun and hitting only a single or double is still great.
I tried to prove Ferman's last theorem (years ago) for my senior project. I didn't:-) But I turned in what I had and got an A+ and 4 invitations to grad school based on that paper alone.
I entered my fraternity into a contest for Chapter of the Year. I didn't care about the trophy; I only cared about what would happen to us by doing all the things needed to try for it. It worked.
I have often tried to solve the biggest problem at some of my customers over the years, but didn't. But all the little things I had to do to make the attempt turned into pretty good products and services anyway.
Nothing wrong with trying to hit a homerun as long as you keep your wits about you and don't let it become and win or go home proposition.
The reality version: Shoot for the moon, then about 10 meters up, you realise there's a bunch of things like a poorly designed rocket and gravity holding you down, then you fall and painfully break your tailbone.
It sounds like you have been fortunate and found what is right for you. This may not be true for others and sometimes people must learn things for themselves and walk their own paths.
For others, if you are able to, at least try for YC et al as there is much to be learnt from even the application/interview process.
All the unsuccessful people I have met said it was better to have tried and failed than not tried at all and all came away better from the experience.
Lastly, it seems YC is less a lottery (success soley based on pure random chance) and more like a stable where promising prospects are picked, trained, and groomed (via exposure to competitive environment and advice, insight, and mentoring from experts and alumni alike) before being sent out to race. Hence your chances of success is much greater with YC and if your idea is poor or has a high probability of failure (i.e. not making money/users) then at least you get a considered insight to this earlier rather than later. Either way, you benefit and the reasons to do it outweigh those not to.
It's not really accurate to compare starting a startup to playing the lottery. There is a lot of luck involved, but it's not all luck. People who have certain qualities (e.g. determination, intelligence) do much better than those who don't. So for people who have those qualities, taking a shot at a startup will on average be a net win over the default plan of working for income.
It's also a bit dramatic to suggest that working on a startup = giving up your entire life. The hackers I've met who are working on startups generally seem happier than those who aren't. See for yourself:
I really do hate that type of statement - why do people feel they can't have a family in order to make it in the startup world? I'm married, have a mortgage, have car payments, pets, etc. My income is the sole income of our household at the moment and my wife is excited every time I start a new project, regardless of the risk.
If we lost our house, cars, etc on a gamble and had to rebuild, we'd still be alive and do what we have to do to rebuild. BFD.
To anyone on the fence about applying, I suggest going for it- after interviewing with the folks at Y Combinator I walked way incredibly impressed with each and every one of them, from the intellect brought to the conversation to their flexibility with the odd circumstances we brought to the interview.
All of the YC founders I've met speak highly of their experience and wouldn't trade it for the world- with every founder I've met and asked if they found it was worthwhile, the answer was an unequivocal yes. Give it a go and see what happens, the worst that can happen is you're no worse off than you are today.
I was meeting with some guys that funded both XM and Sirius. Others were confused why they invested in both, in a space with only two real players. Their logic was clear: we will be invested in the winner. It paid off greatly.
39 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 98.9 ms ] threadAlso, it's nice to see the weed-out question added: "Are any of the following true?"
(We added that question last cycle. There are no changes to the questions this time.)
Shouldn't that be winter?
As it is now, if you have a clue you can probably figure out that answering yes is pretty much an instant disqualification, since the system will never know if you are answering yes to only 1 founder(probably seems like no big deal to most people) or yes to none of the founders are programmers.
I would at least add a text box for them to tell you, what it is they are answering yes to. Would save you that one phone call/email to ask that question.
Would someone with experience in the area comment on the merits of "marriages of convenience" in the cofounding of startups?
When I asked jl at startupschool where most people met their cofounders, she said friends at school.
Now would be the time to start building the relationship for the next funding cycle. It'll give you time to try out working together and build a prototype to show off. Maybe you'll click immediately, and maybe you'll have a kickass weekend of coding together (remotely together is fine, too...Open Source projects often exist for years with the developers never meeting in person--my co-founder and I had worked together for about five years before meeting) and produce some sort of prototype. Sometimes things Just Work.
Would someone with experience in the area comment on the merits of "marriages of convenience" in the cofounding of startups?
It's happened, but nobody is going to recommend you start a business with a total stranger. But, if the choice is "start working with a stranger today to find out if we click as a team, or wait indefinitely until I know someone well enough to start a company with them" the answer is, obviously, try working together. If it works, great! If it doesn't, you're out a couple of months, and you've found out that this person isn't right for you. Make sure you establish some ground rules when code begins showing up, so you can divide or give up on the spoils and move on without animosity, but otherwise, digging in and working is the only way to know if you'll work well with someone.
You'll never know until you try, and if you can build a working demo and get along great, having a "wrong" answer to that one question will not prevent you from getting into YC.
I used to think that I could become a millionare by having one big software hit that would get bought by Microsoft and I'd never have to work on it again.
After a series of disappointments, I decided to stop chasing this dream, and instead just sell software online. Now I work very little, and I work on things I enjoy doing, and I earn way more money monthly than I can spend.
I'm pointing out that you don't need to create a calender widget or some time monitoring software to become rich. You can also just make a normal product that people want (for example Tax entry software), and sell it for a price that people are willing to pay ($300), and you'll make good money.
Play the lottery, but don't give up your entire life in the hope of a better life.
It's possible to sell software and chase the dream of a big exit. But, it's a different mindset and a different model, and you cut off some of your possibilities when you choose one or the other. If you build software with the intention of making it profitable within, say, six months, you will make decisions that work counter to making a sale to Google or MS or Yahoo. First thing you'll do that makes a sale to a mass-market consumer Internet company less likely is you'll charge money for your software and thus cut your userbase by an order of magnitude, if not more. Free stuff has tens or hundreds or thousands of times the number of users. I know this to be true because our commercial offering has a little over 1000 paying customers. I know, that's awesome, right? Until you learn that our Open Source software has X million users . I have no clue exactly how many users 12 million verifiable downloads, plus countless downloads from mirrors and other sources, means in real living, breathing, users...but it's certainly more than one million and probably less than 12 million. Makes our 1000 paying customers look like a bad joke. But, when it comes to being acquired by the big guys, 1000 paying customers is nothing...X million users is more interesting to them, by far. And, of course, I should point out that not everyone with a startup has the option of following both paths--we were "lucky" enough to have been working on our Open Source products for the past 10 years or so before deciding to make a business and a commercial product out of it.
But there's more yet to the story. When you have revenue...at least, revenue of a certain level, say, $1 million annually, you are no longer at the mercy of investors or acquirers, and you're more likely to find that you can call the shots in raising money and in being acquired. You may not be acquired by the coolest company in the world, but there are an awful lot of companies out there that would like to acquire a software product that makes $1 million a year, even if it's only serving 1000 paying customers.
I don't think maxklein or I can tell you (the figurative "you" that is applying, or thinking of applying, to YC) what kind of business you ought to build. But being aware of the extremely wide range of possibilities for funding, growing, and making money from your business is absolutely mandatory if you want to come out the other end of the process happy and feeling like you got your time's worth.
I can attest that trying to hit a homerun and hitting only a single or double is still great.
I tried to prove Ferman's last theorem (years ago) for my senior project. I didn't:-) But I turned in what I had and got an A+ and 4 invitations to grad school based on that paper alone.
I entered my fraternity into a contest for Chapter of the Year. I didn't care about the trophy; I only cared about what would happen to us by doing all the things needed to try for it. It worked.
I have often tried to solve the biggest problem at some of my customers over the years, but didn't. But all the little things I had to do to make the attempt turned into pretty good products and services anyway.
Nothing wrong with trying to hit a homerun as long as you keep your wits about you and don't let it become and win or go home proposition.
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."- Les Brown
For others, if you are able to, at least try for YC et al as there is much to be learnt from even the application/interview process.
All the unsuccessful people I have met said it was better to have tried and failed than not tried at all and all came away better from the experience.
Lastly, it seems YC is less a lottery (success soley based on pure random chance) and more like a stable where promising prospects are picked, trained, and groomed (via exposure to competitive environment and advice, insight, and mentoring from experts and alumni alike) before being sent out to race. Hence your chances of success is much greater with YC and if your idea is poor or has a high probability of failure (i.e. not making money/users) then at least you get a considered insight to this earlier rather than later. Either way, you benefit and the reasons to do it outweigh those not to.
It's also a bit dramatic to suggest that working on a startup = giving up your entire life. The hackers I've met who are working on startups generally seem happier than those who aren't. See for yourself:
http://paulmckellar.com/albums/42-Evan-Williams
Even if you "fail" in the financial sense, you'll have significantly more experience than others who list more "years experience" on their resumes.
If we lost our house, cars, etc on a gamble and had to rebuild, we'd still be alive and do what we have to do to rebuild. BFD.
All of the YC founders I've met speak highly of their experience and wouldn't trade it for the world- with every founder I've met and asked if they found it was worthwhile, the answer was an unequivocal yes. Give it a go and see what happens, the worst that can happen is you're no worse off than you are today.
PG, we've built a product similar to a product you have already funded. Whats your policy on issuing funding to a similar services, albeit marginally.